Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Don Gillette
405 Ill. App. 3d 881
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Maxum insured Don & Betty Gillette, d/b/a Gillette Parade Products; policy Oct 10, 2007–Oct 1, 2008; agreement covers bodily injury/property damage with defense duty subject to exclusions.
- Kaler sued Gillette for injuries after being thrown from a parade float on a public road Aug 3, 2008.
- Kaler alleged defective/unsafe float, insufficient rails, failure to warn, and unsafe operation by the driver and float.
- Maxum filed a June 3, 2009 declaratory judgment action seeking to negate defense/indemnity; circuit court found a duty to defend was present but noted the auto exclusion did not apply.
- Appellate court reversed, holding the float fits the policy's auto definition and the defective-condition claims relate to the auto’s use, so the auto exclusion applies and there is no duty to defend; matter remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parade float falls within the policy's auto definition. | Maxum: float is an auto (trailer) per policy. | Gillette: float not an auto; separate defective-condition claims not tied to auto use. | Yes, the float qualifies as auto. |
| Whether defective-condition claims fall within the auto exclusion. | Kaler's claims about the float's condition are independent of auto use. | Defective-condition claims arise from use of the auto and are linked to operation. | Auto exclusion applies; no duty to defend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crum & Forster Managers Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 156 Ill.2d 384 (1993) (policy construction; insurer's duty to defend broader than indemnify; look to underlying allegations)
- State Farm & Fire Casualty Co. v. Perez, 387 Ill.App.3d 549 (2008) (negligent modification of a motor vehicle within use/exclusion analysis)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill.2d 90 (1992) (defining trailer and ordinary meaning for policy terms)
- National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Glenview Park District, 158 Ill.2d 116 (1994) (duty to defend determined by potential coverage under the complaint)